Standing Committee B

[Mr Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

Nicholas Winterton: I understand from the Clerk that modest progress was made this morning, but I am sure that, under my expert Chairmanship, greater progress will be made this afternoon. Clause 3 Conduct prohibited without a licence

Clause 3 - Conduct prohibited without a licence

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 20, in page 2, line 40, leave out from `activities' to end of line 42.— [Mr. Fearn.]

Nicholas Winterton: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 42, at end insert
`or as required for the purpose of, or in connection with, any contract he has with his employer.'.

Ronnie Fearn: You referred to modest progress, Mr. Winterton, but I was not guilty of contributing to that. Too many words were, perhaps, spoken before I rose to speak to my two amendments, but they were dealt with in four minutes, which is more than modest progress.
 The amendments question the wording of lines 40 to 42 of page 2. I was asking for more information about the loophole created by excluding in-house operatives, and I look forward to the Minister's reply to that.

Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his succinctness.

Charles Clarke: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Winterton. My only concern about what you said is whether ``modest'' is too mild a term to describe what happened this morning, although the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) spoke to his amendment in an admirably succinct manner.
 This is an important amendment. The point that it raises was debated at length on Second Reading, and in the other place. The hon. Gentleman has raised a series of serious points with regard to the judgments that are made about what to include in the Bill. Many Members of all parties have concerns about the matter. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends spoke about it on Second Reading, and I am delighted to have an opportunity to return to it. 
 The White Paper envisaged that in-house manned guards would be included in the licensing regime but, after lengthy and detailed consideration, we decided not to do that at this stage. We concluded that to require all in-house manned guards to undergo two vetting processes—by the employer and by the authority—could add a further burden of bureaucracy on to businesses. It would also have the effect of adding enormously to the already large number of people whom the authority will need to licence when it is up and running—the estimates range from between 300,000 and 350,000 people—and we felt that it was important to establish the authority and to clarify its aims without giving it such an enormous amount to bite off that it might make its task more daunting. 
 The Bill regulates some in-house staff, particularly door supervisors and wheel clampers. We focused on those particular groups because they can exercise considerable influence and power over people who might be young or vulnerable, or both. However, the White Paper generated substantial representations that led us to conclude that it was reasonable, at least for the time being, for companies to continue to satisfy themselves about the probity of their employees and potential employees. A distinction must be drawn between such situations and those in which services are provided under contract and the person hiring the services must place a greater degree of trust in the probity of the hired staff. 
 The hon. Gentleman raised questions about lines 40 to 42 of page 2. They are intended to refer to people who have engaged in contracts in the way that I have indicated. We are aware of arguments for their inclusion in the regulatory regime established by the Bill. As I noted earlier, we shared those views at the time of our White Paper. We understand the argument that has been advanced to the effect that not licensing in-house manned guards could lead to companies switching from contract staff to in-house staff because it will be cheaper and that that will, in turn, lead to deteriorating standards in those companies. That is a serious argument for including in-house staff. 
 I have no doubt that the Security Industry Authority will be receiving such arguments and that it will pay close attention to them as part of its general duty to keep the industry and the operation of legislation under review. The Government will listen carefully to arguments from the authority, and that is one of the reasons why we have structured the first part of the Bill as we have. It will ensure that such issues are kept under review. That is the reason for our balanced judgment. I acknowledge directly that real arguments are being advanced by the hon. Gentleman. It is not a specious point. It is a serious issue, as we said on Second Reading. Our judgment is that we should start the authority's operation by biting off what we can chew most effectively and then examine the situation as it moves forward to see how the operation needs to be developed. That is the reason for such a formulation.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is giving a serious response to the hon. Member for Southport. I agree that such issues are important. They took up some time both on Second Reading and in another place. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the issue in relation to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which was raised in another place by Lord Gladwin of Clee. As the Minister knows, whether in-house guards should be covered by the new authority has been very much a live issue because the Government changed their mind between the White Paper and the Bill. Is he willing to say a little about TUPE, so that we can have his comments on the record to assist those in the industry who are interested in such issues?

Charles Clarke: I was not intending to say anything specific at this stage about TUPE, except that I know Lord Gladwin of Clee very well. As the hon. Gentleman may know, he was a distinguished trade union official for a long time and the regional organiser for the GMB. He also served under the Labour party before he became a Member of the other place. In that capacity, he worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and the Transport and General Workers Union. He spoke with great authority and we listened carefully to his views. He came to the judgment that we arrived at.
 TUPE does apply. I do not think that I can add anything further at this stage. I had not intended to say anything about the matter and I am loth to go beyond that simple statement.

John Bercow: No brief.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I do not have a brief on such matters. As I have said before in Committee, given the choice of answering in an informed way or an ill-informed way, I prefer to answer questions in an informed way. Indeed, I was criticised by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) this morning for responding in an ill-informed way to some of the debate. I shall think about whether there is further information about TUPE that might help the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).

Nick Hawkins: The Minister has been forthright and open in saying that he does not have a brief on such matters. I am slightly surprised at that because when the matter was dealt with in another place, in response to Lord Gladwin of Clee, Lord Bassam said:
 ``If he has further questions, we shall try to deal with them during the Bill's passage through the House.'' —[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 14.] 
It seems odd that the Minister has not received that brief by now.

Charles Clarke: I have a substantial brief. My noble Friend in the other place is quicker on his feet than I am in dealing with such matters. However, I had not prepared myself to respond in detail to such points that were raised in an intervention. If the hon. Gentleman, or other members of the Committee, wishes to raise further points on the matter, I shall be happy to deal with them.
 I urge the hon. Member for Southport to withdraw his amendment on the basis of our assurance that such a process will move the operation of the authority into an effective regime.

Bruce George: Despite what you might think, Mr. Winterton, I was not responsible for the delays this morning. I read my contributions, was profoundly embarrassed, and determined to be briefer. If the Minister is not able to make his speech, it provides me with the opportunity of making it for him.
 We recognised, in the production of the consultative paper, that the inclusion of in-house security alongside contract security was correct, and in response to a written question from that brilliant Member of Parliament, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Minister, stated: 
 ``Around 180 responses were received to the White Paper `The Government's proposals for Regulation of the Private Security Industry in England and Wales' (CM 4254) published in March 1999. Those respondents opposed to the regulation of in-house employees were: 
 Theatrical management association and Society of London Theatre 
 Museums and Galleries Commission 
 The National Trust 
 Association of Leading Visitor Attractions 
 A member of the public.''—[Official Report, 28 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 709W.] 
In the light of the fact that 175 out of the 180 organisations and individuals said that they were in favour of in-house security being included, the arguments were so overwhelming that we were prepared to carry on with the proposals in the consultative paper for including in-house security. I thank hon. Members for persuading me likewise. The logic of hon. Members' arguments was so overwhelming that I am going to tell the better regulation task force to worry about aspects of regulation other than the private security industry. 
 If the Minister would accept my speech as his, it would save us from dealing with a more protracted speech later, when we consider in more detail the appalling omission of in-house security from this legislation.

Ronnie Fearn: I want to comment on a phrase used by the Minister. He said that he thought that between 300,000 and 350,000 personnel were involved. So far, during debates on the Bill, we have heard figures of 200,000, 250,000 and now 350,000. It seems impossible and amazing that we do not know how many people work within the business that we are about to regulate. Perhaps we will find out when the regulation comes about. In view of what the Minister said, I accept his explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
 `(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine, or to both.'.
 I endorse what has been said and welcome your return to the Chair, Mr. Winterton. That is in no sense an affront or discourtesy to your co-Chairman Mr. Benton, who chaired proceedings with alacrity, patience and humour this morning, but we knew that you would follow in similar vein this afternoon. We look forward to your continued Chairmanship. 
 I am pleased to speak in support of amendment No. 39, which would increase the penalty, under the clause, for a person who engages in licensable conduct without a licence. It is necessary—or desirable at any rate—to explain the background to, and purpose of, the amendment. As the Minister is aware, the maximum penalty under the clause for the offence of licensable conduct without a licence is six months' imprisonment and a £5,000 fine on summary conviction. However, there is what might be argued to be an inconsistency or disparity between that provision, on the one hand, and other provisions in relation to fines and other penalties, on the other. 
 This is not entirely uncharted territory. As the Minister knows, similar issues were intelligently explored during the Standing Committee on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill in January of this year. On those occasions, the Minister offered us some reassurance, and I hope that he might be able to do so in this case. 
 I mentioned the maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and a £5,000 fine and emphasised that it is out of kilter with other provisions. That has caused my brow to furrow and beads of sweat to descend on it and me to agitate for the Minister adequately to explain the apparent inconsistency.

Nicholas Winterton: Appear.

John Bercow: Perhaps the beads appear rather than descend.
 Stiffer penalties apply for the offences under clause 5, which relates to the use of an unlicensed operative, and clause 6, which relates to the use of an unlicensed wheelclamper, a matter of considerable import, not least to the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). The offences attract a maximum of five years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine—not the £5,000 maximum provided for in the clause, but an unlimited fine after conviction on indictment. 
 I emphasise, not even evaluatively but simply as a statement of fact, that it is a sign of the importance attached to some of the offences that they will carry penalties, if the Bill is unamended or as long as it is not amended in what might be called a liberal fashion, that will preclude consideration of individuals so convicted and punished for release under the Government's home detention curfew scheme. 
 I realise that, within the Home Office ministerial team, the Minister does not directly deal with the matter, but he will know that, under that scheme, the people who are eligible for early release are those who have been convicted of offences that would attract a custodial sentence of more than three months but less than four years. People sentenced to a custodial sentence of five years' imprisonment would obviously not be eligible for early release. That shows how important the offences are considered to be. 
 Will the Minister consider whether the Bill might be stiffened further? That is the objective of amendment No. 39. To take an obvious example, let us suppose for the sake of argument that a shopkeeper employs an unlicensed wheelclamper—I am delighted in referring to this important subject to see the return of the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central, whose efforts on these important matters have been tireless and effective in equal measure. 
 Let us suppose that a shopkeeper employs an unlicensed wheelclamper but does not have the defences available under clause 6(2). As the occupier of the premises in question, he would therefore be guilty of an offence under clause 6 and could be sent to prison for up to five years and fined an unlimited amount to boot. I am not cavilling at that or saying that it is a bad idea. It gives teeth and potency to the Bill. However, I am unclear why the Government do not follow a similar logic throughout, although there may be a good reason. 
 Although it is tempting to do so, I shall not dilate on the defences available under clause 6(2). Suffice it to say that a pithy summary is that they are along the lines that the person did not know or have any reasonable grounds for suspecting at the time that the activities were carried out that the person in question did not hold a licence. In other words, the defence is, ``I might have done it, guv, but I wasn't aware that I was in breach.'' 
 The unlicensed wheelclamper himself would be guilty only of an offence under clause 3—engaging in conduct that is prohibited unless a licence is held. He would therefore be liable only to a fine of £5,000, rather than vulnerable to an unlimited fine. Therefore, the cowboy clamper would be subject to a lower penalty than would apply to a person who had used the individual's services. Does the Minister think that the maximum fine of £5,000 that is set out in clause 3 is adequate in such a case? There is a difference between the two penalties, and I wish to explore whether that is deliberate or accidental. If the difference is deliberate—I suspect that it is—will the Minister explain the rationale behind the differential treatment and, in the unlikely event that the difference is accidental, will he consider correcting the error?

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Member for Buckingham says, this is a deliberate question, and, because we have discussed the matter in other Committees, I shall immediately concede that. This is a legitimate subject for debate, and the amendment is appropriate.
 We decided that it was important to distinguish between the offence of being an unlicensed security operative, and the offence of being an employer who uses an unlicensed security operative. I agree that there is a question of proportionality and balance of judgments, and the matter is a question of judgment. Therefore, I accept that the hon. Gentleman's case is legitimate—one can make the judgment in a different manner. However, we have used the wording in the Bill because we consider that it is important to recognise that an individual who had not obtained a licence was in a different position from an employer who was using people who were not licensed, when they should be aware of the situation. The danger to public security is an employer, such as a nightclub chain, that deliberately does not use people who are appropriately licensed. A heavier penalty should apply in such a case than should apply to an individual who should be licensed and is not. 
 I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that that is a balance of judgment. He asked for the reasons for that judgment, and that is the distinction between the effect of an unlicensed individual, compared with the decision of a user of a security service to use people who are not licensed. The latter is a more serious offence than the former, and therefore a different penalty is applied. That is the basis of our judgment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

John Bercow: I am not entirely persuaded. The Minister has a case, which can be knocked back and forth, and an argument can be made either way. I wondered whether he would develop his argument on the basis of the significance of deterrents or, in the absence of sufficiently stringent penalties, the risk of copycat or imitative behaviour. He did not do so.

Charles Clarke: Those are both powerful arguments for tougher targeting of the user of security, compared with the individual. There are other arguments concerning the general regulation of the industry, which are why we consider that to be the case, but the hon. Gentleman gave good examples of why we are trying to make that distinction.

John Bercow: My generosity of spirit, which is almost always on display, got the better of me, and I aided and abetted the Minister by volunteering an argument that he had chosen not to deploy. I accept that there is an argument in that respect, although I am not sure how powerful it is. We would have to examine the evidence over a period of time to know whether the differential penalties applied. There may be a utilitarian benefit in taking such an approach, which would yield evidence over a period to examine whether that prognosis was vindicated. However, there is a danger, in the interim, that some people may be disadvantaged relative to others. Equality of treatment, which we may take as a reasonable principle of public policy and of the penalty for the breach of statute, will not be applied.
 If individuals who are entirely knowingly in breach of the law are treated less severely than proprietors of businesses, is there any reason to believe that there will not be copycat behaviour and the commission of the sort of offences of which those individuals are guilty? My fear is that there could be. 
 I still think that there is something to be said for equality or equivalent treatment, but I accept that the Minister has made a fair point. I genuinely tabled the amendment in the spirit of opening up the argument and probing the case either way; I do not intend to press it at this stage. In response to what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ian Stewart: It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr. Winterton. This morning, while Mr. Benton was in the Chair, I declared an interest on the basis of my lifelong trade union membership and activity. I went further by declaring the activities of my union—the Transport and General Workers Union—in recruiting and servicing as trade union members employees in the security industry at all levels, from the most sophisticated companies down to what are colloquially known as bouncers. I dislike that name and much prefer the modern description of door stewards.
 Having declared those interests, I think that it is only right that, from time to time, Labour Members also consider in a balanced way the interests of employers in the industry. Clause 3 deals with 
 ``Conduct prohibited without a licence''. 
Subsection (5) states: 
 ``Schedule 2 (which defines the activities that are to be treated as the activities of a security operative for the purposes of this Act and those which, so far as they are designated, are subject to additional controls) shall have effect.'' 
The CBI's concerns about the Bill's impact on the information technology industry have been conveyed to me and other Committee members in the past day or two. It is worried that the Bill's wording makes no distinction between physical and information security. I ask the Minister to clarify the Government's position on that.

Bruce George: I am a little concerned about aspects of the clause. I speak as a consultant for no one. I have an antipathy towards sections of the private security industry—although not because my principal opponent at the election is having his campaign run from a private security firm; God forbid that I should be so hostile and vengeful towards the industry simply on that basis. We are all in a learning process.
 On licensable conduct, one of my concerns—to which I hope that the Minister will be prepared to respond later, if not now—relates to a section of the private security industry that did not want to be seen as part of it and hoped for separate legislation: private investigators. The private investigator is seen as a gumshoe character, the kind of guy who would be seen in a Humphrey Bogart movie. That perception still exists but, in the past few years, the process of investigation has gone upmarket and there are now many large investigation companies, so much so that there was a supplement in the Financial Times on 10 April about corporate security. There are some real giants in the industry, both British and American. 
 I have one concern to which I am not certain that the Home Office has given specific consideration. As I have not declared my hand on this, I am prepared to wait for a response. Investigators such as Control Risks, which is a British firm, Kroll and Pinkerton are in a different market from the gumshoe character. They are engaged in investigating mega company fraud and issues such as due diligence. I know of a British defence company, which was a big household name, that collapsed because it bought an American company that turned out to be crooked. Big security companies, particularly in investigation, deal with white-collar fraud, international asset tracing, due diligence investigation, litigation support, and insurance and reinsurance investigations.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman referred to Control Risks. In addition to the activities that he mentioned, I am sure that he would want to place on record the fact that substantial numbers of people—during the recess, I met someone who works for Control Risks—are engaged in risk assessment on inward investment. That is an increasing sphere for them.

Bruce George: I could add the Control Risks Group, Armor Holdings, Decisions Strategies Fairfax International, Investigative Group International, Bishop International, Pinkerton, Hakluyt, and Smith Brandon International. They are big businesses, both domestically and internationally. The strong pressure on merger and acquisitions in the UK and the country's leading role in banking have encouraged the creation of sophisticated investigations companies that have not really emerged in any other European country. The value of the industry to the UK economy is probably between £100 million and £200 million per annum and depends largely on the confidence placed in it by corporate clients in the discreet management of investigations.
 I do not speak from any direct experience, although I recall visiting several legal firms that brought together investigators of all types to pursue, successfully, those who had evaded police detection after the Brinks Mat robbery. There was a celebration party of 250 people, which shows how the private sector is engaged in the investigation of corporate affairs almost as much as is the Serious Fraud Office. Frankly, the private sector can often do it better than the police, because it has access to highly qualified people, more numerate lawyers and better business specialists—I mean no disrespect to the police force. 
 The problem is that clause 3 requires the licensing of anyone employed for purposes of assisting with an investigation. That does not take into account two important factors. Naturally, most investigations of corporate crime attempt to uncover information that is hidden either because it would imply or prove a crime or cause for civil action, or because the discovery of that information could injure the party that is attempting to keep it secret. That is obvious. An example of the first case is suspected fraud; an example of the second would be misinformation supplied by a company to secure competitive advantage. In now come Kroll or Control Risks to do a major investigation of what could amount to millions of pounds. To obtain relevant information in the course of that investigation, it is often essential that the individual seeking it is not identified as an investigator. Indeed, the information might probably be obtained only because he can claim to be a consultant of some kind, an academic, an industry expert or a financial analyst. 
 Much of the work undertaken by corporate investigation teams depends upon the ability of those companies to employ on a temporary basis people who do not normally work as investigators. If they were required to have their names on a register as having been licensed because they were undertaking licensable activities, quite a number would not wish to be involved in any investigation.Furthermore, it would be possible for the subject of an investigation to identify those making inquiries as investigators, thereby nullifying the activity. 
 If everyone engaged in investigation—I can use this argument in another part of the Bill—had their name disclosed because they had gone through a licensing process, someone committing a major fraud in the City of London could gain access to all that information on all the corporate investigators and private security companies and therefore could identify someone who suddenly came into the company to undertake a survey of some kind. That would give the serious fraudster an enormous advantage. 
 Can the Minister look at who those people applying for licences are and whether they are carrying out their business in a professional manner? Perhaps it might be possible to assist the process of corporate investigation by some form of amendment to the Bill. This also comes up in another clause. We are talking not about a seedy guy in a mackintosh who is snooping around to see whether someone is engaged in extramarital activities, but about the phenomenal growth in corporate crime, both domestic and international. Expertise of the highest order is required to match the expertise of those who are defrauding companies and the nation as a whole of vast amounts of cash and resources. 
 We are all involved in a learning process on the whole question of private investigators. We are trying to understand that it is not just the guy outside the nightclub or a security guard. It is pretty easy to work out how they operate. It is vital that we do not disadvantage those legitimate companies, which I believe should be licensed as companies and not simply as an amalgam of individuals. I hope that it might be possible at a later stage for the Minister to invite his officials to have some discussions with that top level of the market to see whether the Bill might not advance the cause of investigating and successfully bringing to prosecution major criminals, not a drunk who tries to get into a nightclub. 
 I hope that the Minister will be satisfied and will eventually be able to convince us that corporate investigation will not be disadvantaged in any way as a result of the Bill, particularly under this clause, as some of the big companies suspect that it may impair the ability of their qualified people to go under cover. It is not possible for someone to tell an office that he works for Control Risks and to ask whether any employees have their hands in the till. It has to be done surreptitiously. I hope that the Minister can convince the Committee that the Bill will enhance rather than retard the requisite process. Despite the negative image of investigators, the security industry is important: it brings a great deal of money into the country and it solves many crimes.

Nick Hawkins: Important points have been made by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South and the hon. Member for Eccles. In both cases, we are talking about the interests of industry and it will not surprise any member of the Committee to hear that Conservative Members have been contacted by organisations and companies, and that meetings have been arranged with a group of leading corporate investigation consultancies—including the companies, such as Control Risks, Armor Holdings and Kroll Associates, mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members have also talked to CBI experts on these matters.
 Both Labour Members who have spoken would concede that we shall return to this matter when we debate schedule 2. The hon. Member for Eccles will note our amendment No. 32, and I hope that he will be minded to support it. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Nick Hawkins: I was saying to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South and the hon. Member for Eccles that, as they are aware, we share several of the concerns that they have raised on behalf of employers and the major security groups. In tune with their remarks, we stress the hope that the Minister will keep such issues under consideration.
 As I was saying when the Division bell rang, we will return to those matters when discussing amendment No. 32 to schedule 2. Parts of that schedule—to which the right hon. Member for Walsall, South has also tabled amendments—are linked to clause 3. Whether the issues are more thoroughly debated at this stage or when we discuss schedule 2 is something of a toss-up. I suspect that we will have a longer debate on some of the CBI-related and Control Risks-type issues when we debate the amendments to schedule 2. 
 While I encourage the Minister and his officials to keep the matters in mind, I otherwise restrict myself to echoing what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman said. They were right to point out that the issues are important, crucial especially to companies of the size that are represented by the association of corporate investigation consultancies. We will undoubtedly return to what the Confederation of British Industry believes that the Government have inadvertently done by including aspects that could apply to catch IT security consultants within the Bill's ambit. I do not want to detain the Committee further at this stage, but I will listen to the Minister's response with interest. I think that we will spend some time on the issues later.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles raised an important point, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath reinforced. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with the latter. The issue is important. When we debate schedule 2, it will be important for the Government to have made clear their position about the merits and demerits of separating the physical from the virtual world, and whether it is technically possible to do that for the kind of businesses that we are discussing. Some businesses that provide physical security on premises might also, by the terms of their contractual obligations, be responsible for electronic security, to which the IT provisions relate.
 That field is becoming immensely complicated. I do not know whether my colleagues have read the exciting description of a British first in the newspapers this morning. This might be an impossibility for Hansard, but the product is called ``: : mail''. It is a new virus tool being produced by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Such developments will be immensely important to industry. One would not want to curtail the development and application of such tools because of the corporate criminality to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South alluded. However, we need to ensure that we do not exclude parts of businesses that may be properly included in the Bill in the context of their provision of physical security.

John Bercow: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the difficulty of distinguishing between the two types of work when referring to employees. The job definition of someone responsible for physical security might also embrace some responsibility for electronic security. However, I should like to be clear about exactly where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. Does he think that, in so far as the two fields can be distinguished—which they often can—that of electronic security should not fall within the Bill's rubric?

Andrew Miller: My whole point in rising was to say that I am not convinced one way or the other. I think that there are merits in both cases. It is a technical area, and we must not end up with a Bill that is proscriptive and damages the security aspects of businesses' IT provision. At the same time, when my hon. Friend the Minister introduced the Bill, it was made clear that it was targeted at scams that are at the other end of the spectrum: cowboy wheelclampers and the small-time security companies that have failed to meet the standards recognised by my friends in Geneva, the international union Uni, which has negotiated many international agreements about the provision of physical security.
 Such distinctions get more and more blurred as time goes on. It will be an interesting challenge for those folk who are not actually here to come up with the right balance. My instinct is that the CBI has an important point but, equally, there are merits in the alternative argument. The Committee should take the issue seriously, and take time over it. Any decision that we take will have important ramifications.

Charles Clarke: This has been a helpful little tour d'horizon. As hon. Members have indicated, when we debate schedule 2—paragraph 4 deals with private investigations and paragraph 5 with security consultants—we will pursue such matters in greater detail. However, I must make a couple of remarks about what has been said.
 I first pick up on the IT point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and then by other hon. Members. I agree that it is a substantive point, but I repeat what I said on Second Reading: 
 ``The Department of Trade and Industry will therefore consult the information security industry on the extent and effectiveness of existing precautions—protected measures—and whether further action is required. In the light of that, I am happy to make it clear that we do not currently intend to bring the information security industry within the scope of the new licensing regime established by the Bill.''—[Official Report, 28 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 974.] 
I am happy to tell my right hon. Friend that the regime that applies to the major companies that he described does need to take account of the commercial situation of the companies and how it operates on the work that they carry out. I am ready to look at his specific points. Officials from my Department have already discussed those concerns with companies such as Kroll Associates and Control Risks. I give him the assurance that I will ask them to pursue that discussion further in the light of today's debate.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful for the Minister's helpful indications and am taking careful note of what he says. However, will the Minister say that he would be happy for his officials to have a specific meeting with those in the CBI who have concerns about the matter? It would be helpful if he could confirm that.

Charles Clarke: I am able to confirm that. Indeed, I had a meeting with the CBI, at an earlier stage, to discuss those issues. We had a full discussion about what we should do.
 Before we have a detailed discussion of schedule 2, I want to make a general point about the major dilemma referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). Ten or 15 years in the future, if one were to want to subvert organisations by selling security services in a criminal way, it will no longer be a matter of sorting out door stewards in respect of dealing with drugs, but a matter of security systems installed in major corporations. We must bear in mind that the evolution of such systems will be important. A difficult balance of judgment will have to be made about how we decide between competing issues. For that reason, in the case of IT security, we have asked the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss with the industry how it might move forward. 
 We have also given a specific responsibility to the authority to keep such matters under review and to come back with proposals that ensure that we have a flexible process. We have taken the right approach in the Bill, as my hon. Friend was generous enough to say during the debate on clause 1. In the light of my remarks and assurances, and the further assurances that I will give during debate on schedule 2, I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 3 should stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Exemptions from licensing requirement

Ronnie Fearn: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 4, line 34, leave out
``or, as the case may be,''
 and insert ``and''. 
 The provision for exemption from licensing requirements seems reasonable; we all agree on that. However, we are concerned about the wide discretion given to the Secretary of State. Should not the authority, as the standard-setting body, agree whether an exemption is suitable? It would also be helpful to know when the Government envisage granting exemptions. Would they consider specifying in the Bill grounds on which exemptions might be allowed? As things stand, the Secretary of State can grant exemptions when suitable alternative arrangements exist, so in theory everyone is eligible for an exemption. Should there not be additional reasons for allowing exemptions, such as public interest grounds, which seem already to be established in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. 
 Given those concerns, we have tabled an amendment that would limit the Secretary of State's discretion. The amendment would require that both the authority ``and'' the Secretary of State be satisfied. It makes sense to require the authority to be consulted, as it will set the standards. It is a small and sensible amendment, so perhaps the Minister will accept it.

Charles Clarke: There might be some misunderstanding. My understanding is that amendment No. 22 would require both the Secretary of State and the authority to be satisfied that suitable alternative arrangements to licensing apply before a person may be exempt from licensing by virtue of subsections (1) or (2) of clause 4—that is, it requires a double approach. Our fundamental concern is about establishing parallel systems that will overload two different bodies—the Secretary of State and the authority—both of which will have to examine the same problem in any particular case. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
 Clause 4 provides for limited circumstances in which a person may engage in licensable conduct without possessing an appropriate licence from the authority. Subsection (1) permits the Secretary of State to make regulations establishing exemptions where he or she is satisfied that valid alternative vetting arrangements exist. If such valid alternatives are already applied in some circumstances, it would be superfluous and an unnecessary burden to require a licence also from the SIA. However, to do that, the Secretary of State must be sure that the arrangements provide adequate public protection. 
 Subsection (2) enables the regulations to delegate to the authority the power to determine whether an employer will ensure that suitable alternative arrangements apply. The authority may permit unlicensed persons temporarily to undertake licensable activities if they or their employers have received approved contractor status under clause 15 or have been given specific dispensation under clause 4, and if the security operatives already have a licence application pending and have not had a previous application rejected. Those are very narrow and precise circumstances. The public would, rightly, expect the general circumstances that are to be regarded as validly alternative to the authority's licensing procedures to be defined only after careful scrutiny. 
 Subsection (3) therefore requires that the proposed arrangements should satisfy the Secretary of State or the authority 
 ``as the case may be''— 
the words that amendment No. 22 would delete—in relation to the protection of the public. To require the Secretary of State to give his or her agreement each time the authority judges that an employer meets the criteria laid down in the regulations would lead to a bureaucratic system in which two separate but parallel agencies had to approve certain decisions. That would be regarded as over-regulation. 
 I hope that that explanation is clear. There may have been some misunderstanding between us, in which case I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. If not, I ask him to consider the fact that the effect of the amendment would be to establish two parallel bureaucracies, which we believe would be unnecessarily burdensome. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now change his course of action.

Ronnie Fearn: I can see that it might be overbearing if the Secretary of State and the authority both had to consider the same cases. Some cases being considered by the authority might eventually require the approval of the Secretary of State, but those cases would not be seen by him. Is that right?

Charles Clarke: In the Bill, the use of the phrase
``as the case may be'', 
means that either the Secretary of State or the authority will make a judgment in relation to the protection of the public. That judgment is the key that will determine the situation. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the authority would take the decision and the Secretary of State would not go through it in great detail. Our concern is that to require both, rather than either, to act ould be unnecessarily burdensome both upon the industry and upon the two organisations, the Home Office and the authorities.

Ronnie Fearn: With that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 5, line 8, at end insert—
 ``(6) A person may apply, on notice to the Authority, to the magistrates' court having jurisdiction over the area affected by the designated activities, for an exemption from the requirement to apply for a licence; and the Lord Chancellor may make an order as to the procedure to be followed on such an application, including on urgent applications; and the test to be applied by the court is the same as that which would have been applied had an application been made to the authority.
 (7) An exemption granted under subsection (6) shall not be granted for a period exceeding one month and shall not be renewable.''.
 The amendment is similar, as Committee members will be aware, to one that was moved in another place on 30 January 2001, at columns 604-610 of Hansard. The significance of the amendment, like the one moved in another place, is that it would cover cases in which a one-off exemption from the requirement to have a licence might be needed in connection with a one-off local event or an urgent case in which it would not be practicable to apply to the Security Industry Authority in time for a licence to be granted. That is to say that by the time the decision had been made on the application, the moment would have passed—the date for the intended event, gathering or meeting would have been overshot. 
 There is some concern about that matter. When it was raised in the other place, Lord Bassam indicated that he could not see good reason why exceptions might arise. However, at other points in our proceedings, the Minister of State, Home Office, argued—despite the voluminous briefing available to him—that although he could not envisage circumstances in which provision X or Y of the Bill might take effect, such circumstances might arise. It was in the nature of the case that it was not possible to anticipate what they might be, but the measure was by way of being—no pun intended—a security device or precaution to ensure that the power in the Bill was sufficiently wide. 
 I cannot say in this instance—I do not intend to dilate the point—exactly what events might be involved. However, in the context of a debate that necessarily raises the issue of parties and large-scale social activities at which security operatives or bouncers might be present, it is important to recognise that there can be many other circumstances in which one might require the services of doorkeepers or bouncers. I know that the hon. Member for Eccles does not like the term, but at least we know what we have in mind when we use it. 
 There can be many other events at which such people might be required. It is imaginable—indeed, eminently likely—that at some stage and probably more than once in the last 30 years, large-scale, highly important and indisputably urgent meetings have had to be convened in the constituency of Macclesfield to discuss matters of local controversy. It is very unlikely that the controversy resulted from the behaviour or malfeasance of the hon. Member for that constituency. It is more likely that he, being the peacemaker that he is, and the industrious and assiduous representative of the masses that he has always aspired to be, was seeking to quell the flames.

Charles Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Winterton, is it appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to say that it is ``very unlikely'' that the Chairman of this Committee would be engaged in this kind of activity? Surely it would be impossible.

Nicholas Winterton: Although I agree with the Minister's assessment of the remarks, I have to say that they are not out of order, as yet.

John Bercow: I do not want to be unkind to the Minister, but I was going to say that under any sycophant's charter, he would always do better than I would. I am happy to accept that alteration to my comment: it is impossible and unimaginable that our Chairman would be guilty of such actions.
 However, while trying to make the point in a light-hearted way, I do not want to detract from its seriousness. An important gathering or event might be organised at short notice. If it were a public meeting, for example, and if the subject were highly controversial and passions had been aroused, the organisers might feel that they needed to appoint people to perform a security function—not in exchange for remuneration, but simply out of a sense of community spirit and a desire to maintain good order. 
 That meeting could not take place two, three or four weeks later because the issue would no longer be live then. It would not be unreasonable for the Minister at least to consider whether there should be some flexibility in such circumstances, so that if it could be clearly demonstrated that there were a good case for exemption—I emphasise that I this should apply only where it could be demonstrated that there were a good case for an exemption—such an exemption might be provided. We are asking the Government to reconsider the issue—notwithstanding the observations of Lord Bassam in the other place—and recognise the need for flexibility, so that the Bill is not so rigid as to be unable to meet the needs of urgent local cases that might arise. That is what we are about. I suspect that the Minister will say that he has not reconsidered Lord Bassam's remarks in the other place. If he has not, or if he thinks that, on the whole, the Government have got the balance right, will he at least address directly the sort of scenario that I have just described? 
 I hope that the Minister accepts that such a scenario could perfectly well arise. If so, does he not also accept that the greater danger would be if such an event had to be cancelled or prevented from taking place simply because the procedure was too cumbersome and long-winded to allow a successful application for a licence to be made in the time scale that that public, local and urgent issue required. On the strength of those opening remarks—I do not rule out the possibility of making further remarks; it depends on the response that I receive—I rest the case for the amendment and wait to hear what other hon. and right hon. Members, not least the Minister, have to say.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Member for Buckingham raises the question of what procedure should be used in a case of urgency. That is a reasonable question. Although it is hard to see what kind of event we are talking about, I accept in principle that there could be a need for such procedures in such circumstances.

Nick Hawkins: I want to help the Minister to envisage the sort of event we have in mind—it is one that could easily crop up in of any our constituencies, so I hope that he will find the following example valid. Sometimes a planning issue arises in a constituency and a report on it suddenly appears in the local paper. All of us, from whichever political party we come, will be familiar with such cases. There is often an outpouring of public feeling, sometimes on both sides of an issue, and sometimes an immediate public meeting is convened to which local councillors are invited and for which a hall is booked. That is the kind of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I had in mind. It could happen in any of our constituencies, and frequently does.

Charles Clarke: I accept that. I acknowledged in principle the possibility of urgent cases arising, and I agree that the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis could be a practical example of such a case.
 However, I have some qualifications to add. In most circumstances, the sort of security activities that would be undertaken to deal with such a situation would involve the taking on of approved contractors that were already covered by the process to deal with such circumstances. The natural response would be to call in a security company and deal with the situation in that way. Volunteers of the type described by the hon. Member for Buckingham are not covered by the Bill. That said, I concede that one can imagine urgent circumstances in which volunteers were not being used and an approved contractor who was already fully able to deal with the matter was not called in. I think that that is unlikely, but I accept in principle that it could happen. 
 To establish a parallel process through the magistrates court to address the issue would complicate and confuse the situation by having a court consider such circumstances when the SIA was looking at the whole industry in another way. There is a danger of establishing confusing parallel procedures. It might be costly and give rise to uncertainty and doubt about the best way to proceed. Under the Bill, we envisage—I think that, in general, the Opposition agree—the SIA being a one-stop shop. The danger of establishing a separate exemption scheme is that it might weaken the licensing regime. 
 I concede to the hon. Member for Buckingham—perhaps we should have conceded the point in the other place—that it may be necessary for us to look at an urgency procedure for the SIA that is consistent with the rest of the way in which it operates, to deal with the circumstances to which he referred. There is no explicit power in the Bill as it stands to do that. While I resist the proposal to set up a parallel path through the magistrates court to deal with such matters, I accept the proposition, at least in principle, that the SIA ought to have some process whereby it can make rapid decisions in such cases. 
 If it will assist the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, I am willing to make a commitment to look carefully at what urgent procedure we might be able to take on board and what amendment, if any, would be needed, to the Bill to achieve that. It may be that no amendment on Report would be needed; however, there might be such a need and I shall come back to the matter. I accept in principle that there could be a need for urgency procedures, but will the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be better if that were carried out through an SIA process, rather than a parallel process? I shall look carefully at the matter.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister not only for giving way, but for the helpful and constructive spirit in which he is approaching the issue. I ask him to bear in mind one matter as he considers a possible route for an emergency procedure. It would not be appropriate to incorporate in such procedure powers delegated from the SIA to local authorities. That is why I mentioned local planning issues: they can cause emergency meetings and we would not want the SIA's delegated powers to be used because, in another guise, the local authority's actions might be controversial.

Charles Clarke: I take the point that the role of local authorities is that of regulator of issues in their areas combined with their own interests as an institution. [Interruption.] I see from the pagers that a vote is coming in which I am interested. Given that I shall take an overall look at the policy, will the hon. Member for Buckingham withdraw the amendment?

John Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I generally think alike. I, too, welcome the spirit in which the Minister has responded. It should be put on the record that, first, I am happy to concede that there is not likely to be a large number of cases in which differential treatment might be desired or required. Secondly, I can go further and say that it is important that, when considering any back-up or protective treatment that might be available, we should ensure that we do not end up providing an incentive for people needlessly to seek a way out. In other words, I emphasise that applicants should be able to demonstrate good cause for seeking an exemption or fast-track procedure through the SIA of the sort that the Minister describes. It is not good enough for people to fail to prepare properly and prudently for an event and then to claim that they want to stage it now, that it did not occur to them to make proper preparations before and that they were unaware of the constraints of the law.
 I am not being argumentative: I am talking about the few genuine cases in which an important local or other issue springs up without advance notice, an opportunity that had not previously existed arises to stage an important gathering, and the problem is how to hold the meeting without breaking the law. In that respect, I am encouraged by the Minister's comments. I am not hung up about the form, but I am concerned that the needs of the individuals or organisations concerned should be accommodated. I understand why he might be worried that introducing a separate layer will produce duplication or confusion, but there must be a fast-track procedure that works. He went on to say that he was unsure whether it would be necessary to table an amendment or a new clause at a later stage in the Bill. I presume that he was implying that the matter might be accommodated through regulations.

Charles Clarke: All I was trying to say was that I was unsure whether there was any inhibition in the present legislation on establishing an emergency procedure, or whether it would be necessary to facilitate matters by primary or secondary legislation. It is also possible that the practice of the authority could resolve the situation without the need for any such further measures. I did not want to state any firm conclusions, but merely to say that it is a matter that I need to examine.

John Bercow: I think that we all need to examine it. I do not know whether the required changes are proscribed or prescribed under the terms of the clause unamended. Parliamentary counsel's views would be required to determine whether a change in the legislation is necessary. However, we should work on the assumption that a change is required, which will be effected by an amendment or a new clause on Report or through regulations.
 I am glad that the Minister's comments this afternoon have been fairly explicit. My anxiety is that a general election—or ``another event'', as I elliptically referred to it earlier—might intercede. If that were the case, we would have to wait and see what happened to the Bill. That is a matter for discussion at the appropriate time and through the usual channels, but I want to be confident that the Minister had given us a definite answer about how our needs will be accommodated. 
 The Minister will not therefore be surprised that I now return to my usual hobby-horse: regulations. I assume that he will concede that there is at least a 50:50 chance that whatever amendment or clarification is required would be provided through regulations. If that were the case, it would be helpful if a draft of those regulations were made available before the next stage of the Bill, or if the Minister could write to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends to explain how he envisages meeting our concerns through the regulations. He appears to be quivering, although it is possible that he is nodding.

Charles Clarke: I know that my bodily movements are always fascinating to the hon. Member for Buckingham. I was trying to indicate that I was thinking about what he had said. I am prepared to give the assurance that I will communicate with him and other Committee members, either in writing or by speaking in the Chamber, when I have further considered the matter in the manner that I have described.

John Bercow: There is a limit to what one can expect in this life and I suppose that half a piece of cake is better than no cake at all. In keeping with the happy spirit that has characterised this exchange—although it has not, perhaps, characterised all our exchanges—I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Clause 5 - Offence of using unlicensed security operative

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath caught my eye in the nick of time. I ask him to address the Committee briefly.

Nick Hawkins: I have no doubt that during your long and distinguished parliamentary career, Mr. Winterton, somebody has used the same pun about your Christian name, which I share. I hope that both of us will always be in the nick of time.
 There was no debate at all on the clause during the Committee stage in another place, and there was only a brief explanation, without debate, of a minor Government amendment to clause 5. That amendment introduced the word ``conduct'' to clause 5(3), whereas in the first draft of the Bill the word ``activities'' appeared. That was the only matter raised in relation to clause 5 in another place, and not debated, because Lord Bassam moved the amendment on Report. We are in the unusual position whereby the Minister will no doubt have a detailed briefing from his officials that has not hitherto been used. I hope that it will now see the light of day. There are one or two issues in relation to clause 5 on which the Opposition want to probe the Minister. 
 The clause creates a new criminal offence of using an unlicensed security operative. The Opposition are concerned about how the new offence will be enforced. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will be able to tell us whether the Government envisage that the new Security Industry Authority will take on an enforcement role in relation to the provision. Do the Government anticipate that the new authority will undertake its own investigations? Will it bring its own prosecutions, or will it delegate those matters to the police? That would concern us, because the Government have already overburdened the police. Despite the bogus figures trumpeted by the Government yesterday, Opposition Members are aware that there have been greater and greater strains on the police, and that they have found it more and more difficult to recruit. 
 What discussions have the Minister or his officials had with senior police officers? It would be helpful if he would write to members of the Committee, if he cannot tell us today, to set out what meetings he has had, with whom in the police, at what level and on which occasions. It would also be helpful if the Government were to say whether their officials have yet made an estimate of the number of prosecutions in a calendar year that might be brought under the provision. 
 I also want to probe the Minister briefly on the question of defences. In considering this new offence—unusually, in a Committee, I am probably the only lawyer here—

Charles Clarke: Shame.

Nick Hawkins: I am glad to hear the Minister say that. He tends to approve thoroughly of there being fewer lawyers. In other Committees, I have used the fact that he is usually anti-lawyer in his prognostications. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said earlier how proud he was that he was not a lawyer. Nevertheless, any legislation that emanates from the House must be scrutinised carefully in respect of the rights of the defendant. All hon. Members—whether lawyers or non-lawyers—will be rightly anxious to ensure that there is proper provision to ensure that anyone accused of any new criminal offence can be properly defended, and that the issues in a criminal case can be properly tested.
 Subsection (2) introduces a new statutory defence. Two different sets of wording are often used in statutory defences. One is that used by the Government in this instance—``no reasonable grounds for suspecting''. The alternative set of words, with a slightly different meaning—different in an important way—is ``no reasonable grounds for believing''. It would be helpful to know whether the Minister believes that the words that the Government have chosen give an adequate level of protection to someone who unwittingly employs an operative who does not hold a licence. 
 We would be grateful if the Minister would explain how, in conducting an investigation for an offence under the clause, either the police or an investigator from the authority—the Minister says that the authority itself will carry out investigations—will have access to the register of licensed operatives that the Government propose should be established under clause 12. Will either the police or other prosecuting authorities have a greater level of access to that register than an ordinary member of the public? It is important to know exactly what special privileges the prosecuting authorities or the police will have. 
 Most important, perhaps, is how the clause links with the proposed register, which we will discuss under clause 12. Will the register be integrated with the police databases used for the purposes of investigation? 
 The right hon. Member for Walsall, South appears to be pregnant with possibilities in respect of the debate. He is nodding, so I will conclude my remarks and bow to his greater expertise, if he can catch your eye, Mr. Winterton.

Nicholas Winterton: From where I am sitting, the right hon. Gentleman is in the shadow of the Minister, but I am happy to call him next.

Bruce George: A very large figure is on either side.
 In the consultative documents, the Government went into some detail about the licence itself and how it was to be obtained. In the past, it was not only feasible but common practice that in the lower end of the market, the guarding side, one could simply turn up at a company, ask for a job and be on site at the factory as soon as a uniform could be fitted—no questions asked. The guards were left to work through the weekend, they would pick up their money, and perhaps come back again a week later. There were miserable standards at the poor end of the market, and in some cases those purporting to be higher up the ladder of respectability adhered to them. The personnel department of a good company without access to criminal records would hire an ex-copper from the local station who would find out whether an applicant had form. For the most part, those days are gone, because the fines for police officers who illegally gain access to criminal records is severe. Several coppers have been sent down for transmitting such information. 
 Good companies, of which there are many, have an elaborate procedure for evaluating applicants. Those companies no longer simply take a guy off the street. Applicants must fill in forms and provide information, such as driving licences, passports and references. A good company then telephones the referees. It would try to validate the person applying for the job. Is he who he purports to be? A wonderful case in my locality involved a man who had all the evidence necessary to prove who he was. Before he started work, it was discovered that all the data that he presented belonged to his deceased brother-in-law. People who wanted to get a job would duck and dive and trick, often with the collusion of the company, which knew full well that they were on unemployment benefit. It was clear collusion between hirer and jobseeker. 
 The position may be magically transformed because it is no longer necessary to find a corrupt copper to provide the information, or to have a nudge, nudge, wink, wink from someone living nearby who is peddling innuendo or malicious lies. If a company suddenly thinks that access to criminal records will remove the responsibility for doing patient searching earlier, it deserves all it gets—and, by God, it will get it. 
 What has to happen when a company wants to employ someone? The person sees an advertisement, applies for the post and then has to fill in a form in detail. Any good employer would carry out a check. At the end of the process, the documentation—hopefully with fingerprints to prove that the person is who he says he is—should pass to the police and the regulating authority should then confirm the choice of the particular person for the job. If this relatively costly process is short-circuited by removing some stages and relying on the police and the regulatory authority to the job, tough luck—the lads will suffer and might either end up in jail or pay a significant fine. 
 My serious point is that if people use ``I didn't know, guv'' as a defence, the consequences that follow will serve them right. I hope that that will not be regarded as much of a defence and that any company foolish enough to claim that it was unaware that someone did not have a licence will suffer accordingly. In assessing defences, we should recognise that only a very poor personnel or resources department or a poor employer will be caught—and caught they certainly will be. Many people with forged documentation will purport to be licensed. Perhaps with the aid of this legislation, such people will be able to duck and dive and operate without a licence. The Bill may provide a defence for working as a security guard without a licence on the grounds that an application is pending. The scope for abuse is considerable. 
 The Minister should pay careful heed to the clause. No one should be foolish enough to have failed to secure the requisite information—proof of identity, eligibility for a job and an appropriate licence—before hiring. Sometimes licences can be transferred, but licensing for Securicor means going through the whole process again. Employers who fall for this one will, as I said, suffer. I hope that the courts will punish them severely. 
 When I introduced my previous Bill on the subject in 1994, I was rather more ruthless than the Home Secretary, who I suspect is a bit of a softie. He is being too nice to people who do not deserve any charity. Under my Bill, 
 ``Any person not registered under this Act who . . . offers private security services or . . . falsely implies that he is so registered, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100,000 or to twelve months imprisonment, or to both, or on conviction on indictment to a fine, or to imprisonment for a period of twelve months, or to both. 
 Any firm which offers the services for security purposes of an employee not registered under this Act as a private security agent shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100,000 or to twelve months imprisonment, or to both, or on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of twelve months, or to both. 
 Any person who knowingly furnishes false information in any application made, or proceedings instigated, under this Act, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or to twelve months imprisonment, or to both, or on conviction on indictment to a fine, or to imprisonment for a period of twelve months, or to both.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is quoting at great length from his own Bill rather than from the Bill that we are debating. I would be grateful if he would shorten or paraphrase his Bill rather than quoting in extenso from it.

Bruce George: I am so pleased that you interrupted me then, Mr. Winterton, as I had exhausted that clause. I am glad that two good performers like us can feed off one another, and I thank you for giving me further inspiration. Although I was too modest to say so, I feel that my Bill had a far better clause. I am deeply grateful to you for that intervention and will be pleased to accept any other that you care to make.
 We are not talking now about Group 4, Securicor, or Reliant Security, those companies that have good departments and reputations to sustain. They will look at the Bill eagerly to see how their existing practices can be adapted. They will apply on behalf of their employees, or their employees will apply themselves, and they will probably pay the fee for them. If one is dealing with people at the bottom end of the employment market £40, £60 or £80 can be pretty hefty. A good firm would pay and it would be fireproof in terms of any failure. 
 The people at whom the clause should be aimed are the endless fly-by-nights who will duck and dive and use anything they can to slip through any loophole in the Bill. They will forge documents. They will present documents purporting to be a licence. They will perhaps be working in in-house security companies where there is no compulsion and then will try to convince people that their voluntary licence is a proper licence. They will wear uniforms that will confuse the public with more reputable companies and possibly the police. We must be careful that no quarter is given to those who deliberately deceive the person trying to hire them or deliberately deceive the regulatory authority about the persons whom they are hiring. 
 I know that you will not allow me to go back to a previous clause, Mr. Winterton, but if a good company suddenly requires 50 or 100 operators for a surge job, it will, for example, move people from Yorkshire down to the west midlands. Securicor might take people off one service and move them into another or do a deal with another security company to have those operatives working with them. Therefore, a special licence would be superfluous in most cases. It is crucial that the Home Office establishes with the police and the regulatory authority a sufficiently speedy process. A good company, that is prepared to work according to the rules should be able identify a potential employee, who will fill out the application form, be approved by the company, receive authorisation from the regulatory authority and be able to start work. It will be a disgrace if the guy applying for a job has to sit on his hands for two months before the regulatory authority comes back with the authorisation.

Nick Hawkins: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. A thought occurs to me and it comes back to the issue that I raised about the perfectly law-abiding person who is trying to use someone reputable and the point about the two different defences. When I was first studying law at the end of the 1970s, one of the leading cases that we considered in relation to corporate responsibility involved one of the major national names. It would be unfair to name the company, because it was unusual for it to employ a rogue, but on this occasion it had been engaged by a photo-processing laboratory to provide guards and one of the guards turned out to be an arsonist who set fire to the lab and burned it down.

Bruce George: Securicor.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me. He remembers the case.

Bruce George: The company got away with it.

Nicholas Winterton: Order.

Nick Hawkins: I did not want my intervention to be too long, Mr. Winterton, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows the case and has referred to the company's name—

Nicholas Winterton: Order. There must be a specific question, not another speech.

Nick Hawkins: I was simply going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the light of such cases, he agrees that the difference between reasonable grounds for suspicion and reasonable grounds for belief is important.

Bruce George: If a company hires a potential arsonist, its inspection process and psychological profiling—about which the hon. Gentleman can speak with far more authority than I can—will have failed. A wonderful young woman firefighter in Bristol died four or five years ago when a company, ironically named Burns, hired a security guard who then set fire to the supermarket that he was supposed to be guarding. It is up to the companies: now that they are becoming more respectable, they must put in place the processes to prove that they are respectable. The clause relates to the licence application process, in which the companies will have to follow best practice. They might slip up—those who do not go through the proper procedures will definitely slip up—and have to go to the hon. Gentleman for legal advice to keep them out of jail, because the penalties, even under the softly, softly approach of the Home Office, are severe.

Charles Clarke: I admire and respect my right hon. Friend's blood-curdling sentiments on this topic. They provide a useful introduction to the case in favour of the clause. As he said, it sets out a deterrence mechanism to show that there is a real offence that hurts the organisation that commits it. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, there are three lines of defence. First, the accused may show that he neither knew, nor had reasonable grounds to suspect, that the operative did not have a licence. Secondly, it is a defence to show that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the operative would not engage in activities for which he did not hold a licence. Finally, the accused may show that the security services that were provided were supplied by a person exempted from the need for a licence under clause 4.
 We believe that those are reasonable defences, and no Committee members have disagreed. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating—the way in which the clause is enforced to ensure that we deter such illegal activity. For that reason, we cannot answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath about the anticipated number of prosecutions. I hope that there will be no prosecutions, because I hope that everyone will comply with the law. However, if people seek to bypass it, I agree with the blood-curdling sentiments of my right hon. Friend, and we will have to enforce the law rigorously. 
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath also asked about the reasoning behind the Lords amendment. I have reams and reams of briefing on such matters, not all of which I share with the Committee at all times, but I am happy to do so on this occasion. The amendment was purely technical: the word ``conduct'' in subsection (3), line 26, was previously ``activities'', but was changed to tie in with the concept of licensable conduct, as mentioned in clause 3(1) for example. The original phrasing was simply a drafting slip, no doubt influenced by the different concept of activities of a security representative. 
 More substantially, the hon. Gentleman asked how the clause would be enforced. Clause 19 will give the Security Industry Authority entry and inspection powers to check compliance. Those are important powers that can be applied in particular circumstances. The police have the responsibility of upholding the law and were fully consulted at both the White Paper and publication of Bill stages. It might interest the Committee to know that the Association of Chief Police Officers lead was taken by Richard Childs, the chief constable of Lincolnshire. He is an outstanding chief officer, who is driving forward a modern version of active policing in a number of different areas to deal with such issues. The police have been fully involved with the processes. 
 I do not accept for a moment the ridiculous suggestion that the hon. Gentleman made about so-called bogus recruitment statistics that were published yesterday. I was rather disappointed to hear a partisan political remark in this debate, but I am sure that that will not be repeated under your chairmanship, Mr. Winterton. 
 We do not have plans to provide special access to the register's contents for law enforcement. It is a public document, with clear information. No one has requested special access to the register, and I do not expect such a request to be made. It is simply a source of basic information on names, addresses and the licensed functions that a person may undertake. It is a public register, as we shall discuss when we reach the relevant clause. 
 I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to integrate the database with the general range of other police databases. As I have said in other Committees, we are engaged in a major project. We are seeking to integrate important databases such as those for DNA and firearms with the police national computer. The Government have invested in that to try to rectify the underinvestment that we inherited from our predecessors. We shall address that issue explicitly in this context, but the hon. Gentleman will know that upgrading the PNC is a major national investment that must be taken forward in the right way. It has procedural and other implications, which we are considering. His point will be taken into account in that context. I urge the Committee to accept the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Offence of using unlicensed wheel-clampers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: The points that Conservative Members want to raise start with the fact that this clause was not part of the Bill when it was introduced in another place. It was inserted on Report in another place, creating a further criminal offence of using an unlicensed wheelclamper. It would help if the Minister explained exactly why the clause, which seems to be a logical follow-on from clause 5, was not originally in the Bill. It is more far-reaching than clause 5, which introduces a criminal sanction that applies to those who supply security services using unlicensed operatives. Clause 6 makes the service's end user subject to the criminal law.
 The Minister and other Committee members may recall my saying on Second Reading that Conservative Members would seek assurances from the Government that the provisions criminalising those employing unlicensed operatives would be well publicised. Perfectly respectable businesses and individuals may wish to employ wheelclampers to stop the persistent unauthorised use of their parking spaces. There are, however, two sides to the coin. Respectable companies may employ apparently respectable wheelclamping companies that in fact operate in far too draconian a manner. 
 In contributing to debates on the issue, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central has had very much to the forefront of her mind the fact that a company may look fine superficially and have nothing untoward about it, but the activities of its operatives at the sharp end may cause enormous distress. I am thinking particularly of the sort of companies that rail operators sometimes use. I mentioned in my speech on Second Reading concerns raised by the editor of one of my local newspapers. Those concerns have continued. The editor of The Surrey-Hants Star, Mr. Alan Franklin, has been following the issue with great care. His coverage of the incidents involving a company called Security International Group, used as an operator by South West Trains, has led to further correspondence. 
 The other day, I received another example: a letter from Mrs. Wendy McLean of Church Crookham, a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). She has been one of the many people apparently victimised by the employees of Security International Group, even when she has had a perfectly valid ticket to use the train. It is single ladies travelling, perhaps using station car parks late at night, who are especially vulnerable to the tactics that can be used even by employees of apparently respectable companies. 
 The position is much worse because of charlatan companies—the so-called cowboy clampers. As someone said on Second Reading, they could even give cowboys a bad name. The hon. Member for Doncaster, Central and other hon. Members, from both sides of the House, have been concerned about the activities of cowboy clampers for many years.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman mentions the coverage that his local newspaper has given to the activities of cowboy clampers. I wonder whether the newspaper is also aware that the RAC made very strong representations to the Government for a clause such as this to be included in the Bill, to make landowners responsible for activities carried out on their land. It is otherwise extremely difficult to pin down companies that are there one day and gone the next. The land remains, and that is why the RAC wanted the clause to be included.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Lady is quite right. I was aware of the point that she made, and the RAC was not the only organisation to raise those concerns. It is understandable for us to look at such provisions in the Bill. I simply wanted to alert the Minister to the fact that it would be helpful to hear some background from him, although perhaps he will repeat what she has just said.
 I would like the Minister to comment, when he winds up, on the apparent anomaly in the Bill on which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham touched in his remarks on clause 3. There appears to be a difference in the penalties. The two clauses are not absolutely alike. Although the Minister referred to that in passing, it would be helpful to understand a little more about the thinking of the Government, or that of his officials, about the different penalties. 
 The Minister will be familiar with my next point because it was raised on Second Reading here, and in another place by my noble Friend Lord Cope of Berkeley. It concerns the dentist who wishes to protect his surgery car park from unauthorised use by visitors to nearby shops. If the dentist were to employ an unlicensed clamper, he would be caught by the provisions of clause 6 and potentially liable to a prison term of up to five years. If that same dentist applied the clamp himself, or instructed one of his staff to do so, he would be liable under clause 3, and the maximum penalty would be six months. There is an anomaly there. Both methods could lead to criminal penalties, but there is a potential inconsistency.

Charles Clarke: I welcome the debate. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath rightly said that the clause is a result of a Government amendment in another place. It makes it an offence for an occupier of premises to permit the unlicensed clamping of vehicles on premises where such activities require a licence. Clause 3 makes it an offence to clamp vehicles, without having a licence, for the purposes of one's business or employment, or for any other reason that has a view to the motorist being charged a release fee. We do not consider it appropriate to go further than that and require a landowner to obtain a licence from the authority for the purpose of using a licensed wheelclamper under a contract for services. That would be duplicating bureaucratic controls, without any real gain for the public.
 However, we do accept the need for the Bill to deter unscrupulous landowners who would be tempted tacitly to allow unlicensed wheelclampers to operate on their property. Such a temptation would be particularly strong for the owners of prime sites where the lack of clear warning signs would be likely to lead to a rich harvest of release fees from unwary motorists. The clause closes off that potential loophole, and the reason for that was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central. As well as her general campaigning efforts in respect of wheelclampers, she was studious in pressing that particular point with the support of the RAC and other organisations. 
 With regard to the offence under clause 5, there are three lines of defence. First, the accused may show that he neither knew, nor had reasonable grounds to suspect, that the operative was not the holder of a licence. Secondly, he may show that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the operative would not engage in activities for which he did not hold a licence. Finally, he may show that the security services provided were supplied by a person exempted from the need for a licence under the provisions of clause 4. 
 As far as penalties are concerned, I can do no more than repeat what I said during discussion on clause 3. There is no new argument. It is a question of judgment, as I acknowledged, and the judgment that we have made is set out in the Bill. I urge the Committee to agree that clause 6 stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Mike Hall.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 26 April at five minutes to Ten o'clock.